Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2627
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:53 pm

I've got a couple of questions regarding IFR procedures for instrument approaches. Since the VOR/DME B to OTH allows me to demonstrate both questions, I'll use that approach for both examples.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0712/00929VDGB.PDF

You are going to North Bend, OR (KOTH) in an RNAV equipped aircraft, and receive the following instruction from ATC. "Proceed direct COOSE, cross COOSE at or above 5,000, cleared VOR/DME B approach". Is that legal? COOSE is not depicted as an IAF on the approach chart, so would the "direct COOSE" clearance be considered a radar vector to final, or do you think the following clearance would be illegal?

How about this. While approaching on radar vectors from the northeast, the controller vectors you so that you will join the DME arc between OLJES and COOSE, instructs you to join the DME arc, then clears you for the approach. Would it be legal to fly this approach?
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
kstatepilot
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:23 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:37 pm

1.) I haven't flown an approach like this in a while, but If the airplane is all ready direct Coose then the approach clearance is valid. I don't know if an RNAV airplane could just be given a waypoint like that with an approach clearance.

2.) Yes, because you are on an "initial approach segment"
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2627
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:08 pm

I would agree, now lets change the scenario a little. Imagine that KOTH is non-radar. Instead of intercepting the arc from a radar vector, you are intercepting from an airway between OLJES and COOSE. Again, can you be given direct COOSE, cleared for the approach? Can you intercept the arc from the airway and continue the approach from there?

[Edited 2007-12-23 15:21:19]
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2417
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:10 am

First I see no reason why you couldn't be cleared to COOSE and begin the app. Or be cleared to intcpt the 074 rad OTH and be cleared as well. I could see "incpt the 074 mntn 5000' cross COOSE at or above 3600' clrd for the app." I haven't seen these C&G charts in yrs so is the symbology the same as other charts that the 3600' with the line under is "at or above 3600'? If you cross COOSE at or above 5000' you might find yourself having a hard time to get down depending on Vapp/ and or G/S but other than that go for it.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:23 am

Not checking the books but logically (not legally)... Assuming all "deviations from published approach" is done within the 25NM from OTH and that we're just talking how to go to COOSE...

1. Proceed direct COOSE, cross COOSE at or above 5000 cleared VOR/DME B approach.
There's nothing wrong in going direct COOSE from the east at that altitude (above the MSA NE/SE). But by the looks of it, 5000ft at COOSE is gonna make it interesting if you're on a slick plane... *grin*

2. From NE, join DME arc between OLJES and coose.
Yes. Stay 3800 or above until the arc then go 3600 is fine.
If in non-radar, preceeding traffic is not on the ground, I'm not sure of the legality but there is a risk on conflicting with the preceeding traffic should he perform the missed app. Of you're coming in at 4600 or above until the arc then that's a different question.

3. Non-Radar, direct COOSE.
As long as above MSA until COOSE, and the ATC can establish adequate separation (say previous traffic is already at 5D OTH), why not. But see exceptions noted in #1 and #2. Intercept arc from airway (assume from NE/SE), yes, but then, might aswell tell the ATC you're gonna intercept the arc first.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
kstatepilot
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:23 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:27 am



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 2):
Again, can you be given direct COOSE, cleared for the approach?

Yeah, you would get something like "Cleared present position direct COOSE, cross COOSE at 3600 cleared VOR/DME approach to OTH.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 2):
Can you intercept the arc from the airway and continue the approach from there?

I don't see why not.
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2627
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:35 am



Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 5):
I don't see why not.

My concern with both clearances while not in radar contact is that neither crosses an Initial Approach Fix. The FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook contains the following sentence regarding operations in a nonradar environment: "In the absence of radar vectors, an instrument approach begins at the Initial Approach Fix." FAA Order 7110.65 says "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an Initial Approach Fix." It later allows radar vectors to final by saying "Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.

These statements seem to indicate that the intent in non-radar environments is to commence approaches from the IAF only, where one is published. My concern over this isn't safety. Obviously I can avoid hitting the ground by respecting the minimum altitudes on the published segments. My concern is when I go into non-radar airports similar to KOTH with an overzealous FAA observer in the jumpseat.


Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 4):
If in non-radar, preceeding traffic is not on the ground, I'm not sure of the legality but there is a risk on conflicting with the preceeding traffic should he perform the missed app.

ATC will not clear an aircraft for an approach at a non-towered airport unless the preceding aircraft has reported on the ground, or entered visual conditions and cancelled their IFR clearance.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:31 am



Quoting Alias1024 (Thread starter):
You are going to North Bend, OR (KOTH) in an RNAV equipped aircraft, and receive the following instruction from ATC. "Proceed direct COOSE, cross COOSE at or above 5,000, cleared VOR/DME B approach". Is that legal? COOSE is not depicted as an IAF on the approach chart, so would the "direct COOSE" clearance be considered a radar vector to final, or do you think the following clearance would be illegal?

If ATC cleared you for it, then it's legal, and ATC has assumed all of the liability for traffic and terrain separation...remember, these folks hang their stuff on the line, too. They have standards that they have to adhere to, especially on instrument approaches. That's not to say that mistakes happen, both pilots and controllers make 'em.

Quoting Alias1024 (Thread starter):
How about this. While approaching on radar vectors from the northeast, the controller vectors you so that you will join the DME arc between OLJES and COOSE, instructs you to join the DME arc, then clears you for the approach. Would it be legal to fly this approach?

I don't know for certain, but I'm going to say "no" to this one...but why would the controller vector you onto an arc, anyways? Vectoring saves both you, the pilot, and the controller from having to fly a long arc. The arc is most likely intended for when you are having a really bad day, and go lost comm and need to get yourself down, and can only do it on this approach...or for torturing IFR students  mischievous 
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2627
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:30 am



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
If ATC cleared you for it, then it's legal, and ATC has assumed all of the liability for traffic and terrain separation...remember, these folks hang their stuff on the line, too

Indeed they do, and from reviewing the AIM, Instrument Procedures Handbook, Order 7110.65, and the TERPS, I believe that it would be legal for a controller to do either of the scenarios in my first post. As you said though, they aren't perfect either. There are some very anal FAA inspectors out there, who probably know the rules better than some controllers and most pilots.

From what I've read today while researching this, it seems that things change while not in radar coverage. I see one statement in the AIM which seems to give some wiggle room, but the majority of what I've read indicates to me that the intent is for aircraft not in radar contact to fly over an IAF to begin an approach.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
but why would the controller vector you onto an arc, anyways?

Good point, it seems remote that this would happen. Perhaps there are mountainous airports where approach has adequate radar coverage for the DME arc, but not for the final approach course.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
jgarrido
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:40 pm

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:53 am

It sounds like you are asking about the legality for a pilot to fly those clearances. Since I'm not a pilot I'll leave that part to the experts. As a controller it's my opinion that the phraseology of the first example is inappropriate (wrong). I think a controller is asking for trouble to clear an A/C to cross a non-IAH and clear it for the approach at the same time. I see nothing wrong with the second example, though I have co-workers who disagree with me. I can think of a few examples of when I've done it myself, though they're a bit obscure.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 8):
From what I've read today while researching this, it seems that things change while not in radar coverage. I see one statement in the AIM which seems to give some wiggle room, but the majority of what I've read indicates to me that the intent is for aircraft not in radar contact to fly over an IAF to begin an approach.

From the controllers perspective, the only reason in a non-radar environment to fly over the IAF is for timing and separation. There's a whole slew of rules I can apply for sequencing if you are flying the full procedure. If there's no other traffic I want that plane safely on the ground as quickly as possible.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:07 am



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 4):
But by the looks of it, 5000ft at COOSE is gonna make it interesting if you're on a slick plane...

Not really. Even at an approach speed of 140 Kts groundspeed, you'd need a descent rate of about 760 ft/min to descend the 4200-ish feet in 13 NM. An 850 ft/min descent allows you breathing room if flying at 160 Kts, which we can all agree is pretty quick even for the big guys.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2627
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:52 am

I e-mailed AOPA and asked them about whether it was legal to begin an approach from anywhere except the IAF in a non-radar environment. Their take on it is that while the AIM is ambiguous on the subject, they believe that FAA Order 7110.65 implies that in a non-radar environment an IAF, when available, is only appropriate place to begin an instrument approach.

Their belief that an IAF is required is based on 5-10-5 of 7110.65, which says "If radar contact is lost during an approach and the aircraft has not started final approach, clear the aircraft to an appropriate NAVAID/fix for an instrument approach."

I guess if you combined this with 4-8-1 of 7110.65 which states "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an Initial Approach Fix", then you can argue that the only appropriate NAVAID/fix would be an IAF if available.

Certainly not the clear cut answer I was hoping for, but in line with what I thought the intent was from reading 7110.65 and the Instrument Procedures Handbook.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
AAH732UAL
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:41 pm

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:35 pm

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 11):

Certainly not the clear cut answer I was hoping for, but in line with what I thought the intent was from reading 7110.65 and the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

Sorry for the LATE reply but I was told that the FAA always leaves a little wiggle room.

Here is a question to think about.......

ATC clears the plane PPOS DCT to an IF. That being said, the plane will be OUT of RADAR contact at or right before the IF is reached.

Could that be legal since there is radar to the IF but there was an IAF on the approach?

I would really like it answered but my example could fall under that wiggle room that the FAA left open.

[Edited 2008-07-08 08:39:42]
DME/DME RNP0.3 NA -Escalators don't break---- they just become stairs!
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:12 pm

Since I can't get the link to load correctly for some yet to be determined operator error, I'll wander to this:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 6):
ATC will not clear an aircraft for an approach at a non-towered airport unless the preceding aircraft has reported on the ground, or entered visual conditions and cancelled their IFR clearance.

An aircraft simply reported on the ground technically does nothing for ATC regarding the next aircraft, have to hear the cancel IFR. Having said that, ATC can clear the second aircraft for an approach but needs to ensure that appropriate separation is maintained until they get the cancel IFR from the first aircraft.....not the best operation for sure.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2627
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:00 am



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 13):
An aircraft simply reported on the ground technically does nothing for ATC regarding the next aircraft, have to hear the cancel IFR.

Wow. Surprised to see this thread back alive.

Anyway, you are of course correct that ATC must hear the request to cancel IFR. What I was implying (at least what I think I remember from 6 months ago) was the typical "center, N12345 on the gound at XYZ, like to cancel IFR".
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
jgarrido
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:40 pm

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:31 am



Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 12):

If there is radar to the IF yes. If the radar goes out right before the IF then no.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...c/Chp4/atc0408.html#atc0408.html.1
"Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures may begin at an Intermediate Approach Fix for aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix when the conditions of subpara b4 are met."

b4 states:
"4. Established on a heading or course that will intercept the intermediate segment at the intermediate fix, when an initial approach fix is published, provided the following conditions are met:"
"(b) Radar monitoring is provided to the Intermediate Fix."

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 13):
An aircraft simply reported on the ground technically does nothing for ATC regarding the next aircraft, have to hear the cancel IFR.

I don't agree with that. Once an a/c has reported landing another aircraft can be cleared for an approach.
 
AAH732UAL
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:41 pm

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:35 am



Quoting Jgarrido (Reply 15):
b4 states:
"4. Established on a heading or course that will intercept the intermediate segment at the intermediate fix, when an initial approach fix is published, provided the following conditions are met:"
"(b) Radar monitoring is provided to the Intermediate Fix."

Yes I know that about the RNAV approaches but hey thanks for the info. One thing missing from that is...... ATC has to inform the pilot at least 5NM prior to giving DCT to the IF on an RNAV approach. This gives the pilot time to get his [email protected] together for a lack of better words. IIRC according to a piece I read, the 5NM rule came about after a GA crashed into Mountains a few years back b/c he was given DCT to the IF and ATC did not watch him NOR could he get his GPS set up to accept. So that lead to all those rules and mine posted above.

Thanks! See I figured before right before the IF he goes into non-radar but I wanted to sorta show the wiggle room. Like I guess ATC could clear you to the IF and lose track right after the IF is passed, but that prolly would not be the best idea!

Thanks!
DME/DME RNP0.3 NA -Escalators don't break---- they just become stairs!
 
jgarrido
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:40 pm

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:15 am



Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 16):
Thanks! See I figured before right before the IF he goes into non-radar but I wanted to sorta show the wiggle room. Like I guess ATC could clear you to the IF and lose track right after the IF is passed, but that prolly would not be the best idea!

I guess I didn't really understand your question. By the letter of the law it can't be done unless there is radar coverage until the IF. Of course 99.9% of the time if a controller loses radar half a mile from the IF, the a/c will land safely, but who wants to be a part the event that happens that .1% of the time?

However, I do know what you mean in general about there being lots of ambiguity even in the thousands of rules and regulations that exist in regard to flying, ATC, etc.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Is This Legal? (IFR Approach Questions)

Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:45 am



Quoting Jgarrido (Reply 15):
I don't agree with that. Once an a/c has reported landing another aircraft can be cleared for an approach.

And I'm glad you didn't agree, got me to check the handbook, 4-8-1, does say landed or cancel IFR....good call!  checkmark 
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: NWAROOSTER and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos